ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2021
Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of patients with preserved versus mid-range ejection fraction.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Baseline characteristics of 1,422 patients with heart failure from the HEart failuRe ObsErvational Study of the Polish Cardiac Society (HEROES).Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025Article
- Does heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction resemble heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A wide range of ejection fraction (EF) thresholds have been used to categorize patients with heart failure (HF) with "preserved" EF. Our goal was to characterize the clinical and echocardiographic differences among patients with cardiac structural/functional alterations and mid-range EF (mrEF) (EF 40-49%) compared to preserved EF (pEF) (EF ≥ 50%), irrespective of HF. Patients with an EF ≥ 40% and echocardiographic evidence of structural alterations (left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy) and/or functional alterations (evidence of diastolic dysfunction) were retrospectively selected. Patients with acute coronary syndromes and ≥ moderate left sided valvular diseases were excluded. Patients were divided according to EF to pEF group (n = 578) and mrEF (n = 86). Patients with mrEF were twice as likely to be men, had higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia, diabetes and smoking, compared to patients with pEF. History of coronary artery disease (CAD) was more frequent among mrEF (50% vs. 28%, p < 0.0001, respectively), and highest among the subgroup of patients with HF (83% vs. 35%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Patients with mrEF had increased LV mass index (131 ± 35 vs. 120 ± 26 g/m
Indexed as
Identifiers
32959095What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.